Assembly Transportation Committee advances bills on advanced air mobility, RV removals, school bus flexibility and consumer protections

The California State Assembly Transportation Committee on a quorum vote advanced a set of bills covering topics from planning for advanced air mobility to rules for dismantling unclaimed recreational vehicles and consumer protections for DMV services. The committee moved each measure as amended to the Committee on Appropriations, with votes taken by roll call.

AB 431: statewide planning for advanced air mobility

Assemblymember Tina McKinnor Wilson (author) and industry witnesses described AB 431 as a planning bill to guide the rollout of advanced air mobility (AAM) and electric vertical takeoff and landing aircraft (eVTOLs). Wilson said the bill would create a statewide plan, technical resources for planning and zoning, and support local public engagement. Scott Stauffman of AUVSI (Association for Uncrewed Vehicle Systems International) and George Kevork of Joby Aviation testified in support, saying the measure would help California remain a leader in innovation and public acceptance of new aerial technologies. Stauffman said the bill reflected consensus model legislation and called for public engagement and best practices. Kevork highlighted quieter, electric aircraft and described coordination needs with state and local agencies.

Why it matters: Committee supporters argued AB 431 would provide a consistent framework so local jurisdictions could prepare infrastructure, public outreach and zoning for AAM. Opponents were not recorded in this hearing record.

AB 630: dismantling of unclaimed or hazardous RVs

Assemblymember Mark Gonzalez presented AB 630, sponsored by Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, which concentrates on RVs deemed inoperable or hazardous used as dwellings. Gonzalez described amendments raising the monetary threshold for dismantling unclaimed RVs, adding a 30‑day recovery period for registered owners, improving notification procedures and requiring jurisdictions to track and report removals. Freddie Quintana, representing the Los Angeles mayor’s office, said Los Angeles found thousands of vehicles used as dwellings and described public‑health and safety risks and the problem of “van‑lording” — auctioned vehicles reappearing on the street.

Opponents including Keely O’Brien of Western Center on Law and Poverty and Carmen Nicole Cox of ACLU California Action warned the amended bill could still lead to widespread destruction of people’s only shelter, argued notices and timelines could be inadequate for vulnerable RV residents, and urged targeting predatory buyers rather than removing housing supply. The author and supporters said the bill focuses on the dismantling stage (not towing) and includes strengthened pre‑removal notice and reporting requirements intended to limit predatory resale.

Why it matters: Sponsors said AB 630 is intended to reduce exploitation by buyers who acquire towed RVs at auction and re‑rent unsafe units; critics said raising the dismantling threshold to $4,000 risks destroying people’s remaining shelter without adequate rehousing or due process.

AB 1111: additional flexibility for zero‑emission school bus mandate

Assemblymember Adam Soria presented AB 1111, which adds flexibility for small, rural and disadvantaged school districts implementing the state’s zero‑emission school bus timelines. Witnesses from rural and large districts (Renee Nash, school board member, Eureka Union; Beth Albiani, Elk Grove USD) described operational constraints: limited range in current battery buses, long daily mileage, charging reliability issues, battery replacement costs and the need for additional buses to cover rural routes. Industry and environmental groups said they were reviewing committee amendments that add guardrails and targeted flexibility.

Why it matters: The bill aims to preserve student transportation while giving districts time or waiver considerations where infrastructure or vehicle capability is lacking; sponsors said it does not roll back the statewide ZEV goal but seeks a practical path for districts with limited resources.

AB 1190: caps on fees charged by third‑party vendors for DMV services

Assemblymember David Haney introduced AB 1190 after a consumer recounted being charged an extra fee by a third‑party website that mimicked DMV pages. The bill would cap fees charged by private partners to no more than 5% above the DMV charge for the same service and require a prominent link to the DMV’s official site and clear disclosure that services are available directly from DMV. Consumer Federation of California urged passage; the author said the measure targets deceptive third‑party practices.

Why it matters: Committee testimony stressed consumers were deceived by look‑alike sites and that state responsibility extends to chosen business partners. Supporters framed the bill as a protection against “junk fees.”

Other bills advanced briefly in committee

- AB 987 (towing fees and consumer protections): sponsored testimony emphasized curbing predatory towing and storage fees; the committee passed the bill as amended. Consumer advocates supported it; towing industry representatives asked for additional technical fixes.

- AB 911 (narrow exemption to Advanced Clean Fleets for bucket trucks and cell‑on‑wheels): sponsored by Assemblymember Carrillo, the bill would provide a narrow exemption for specialized telecommunications vehicles the industry says are not yet available as reliable zero‑emission models. Telecommunication and public‑safety groups supported the measure; Union of Concerned Scientists opposed a permanent exemption, noting existing ACF exemption processes. The committee advanced the bill amid members’ concerns about balancing emergency response and air‑quality goals.

- AB 314, AB 1223 and others: the committee advanced AB 314 (transit‑oriented development around high‑speed rail stations) and AB 1223 (local flexibility for Sacramento County transportation measures), each as amended. Members asked for clarity about funding triggers and program guardrails; both bills were moved on to appropriations with recorded roll‑call outcomes (see Votes at a glance).

Votes at a glance (committee actions moved as amended to Committee on Appropriations unless noted):

- AB 431 (Wilson) — Due pass as amended to Appropriations. Motion: Melonzo; Second: Macedo. Final committee statement: 15 votes (advanced out of committee).

- AB 630 (Gonzalez) — Due pass as amended to Appropriations. Motion: Harabedian; Second: Macedo. Final committee statement: 15 votes (advanced out of committee).

- AB 1111 (Soria) — Due pass as amended to Appropriations. Motion: Macedo; Second: Lackey. Final committee statement: 16 votes (advanced out of committee).

- AB 1190 (Haney) — Due pass as amended to Appropriations. Motion: Lowenthal; Second: Arons. Final committee statement: 15 votes (advanced out of committee).

- AB 987 (Sharpe‑Collins) — Due pass as amended to Appropriations. Motion: Davies; Second: Harabedian. Final committee statement: 16 votes (advanced out of committee).

- AB 911 (Carrillo) — Due pass as amended to Appropriations. Motion: Aguilar‑Curry; Second: Arons. Final committee statement: 14 votes (advanced out of committee).

- AB 314 (Arambula) — Due pass as amended to Appropriations. Motion: Lowenthal; Second: Hart. Final committee statement: 12 ayes, 4 no (advanced out of committee).

- AB 1223 (Winn) — Due pass as amended to Appropriations. Motion: Harabedian; Second: Rogers. Final committee statement: 12 ayes, 4 no (advanced out of committee).

What’s next

Each measure now goes to the Assembly Committee on Appropriations, where fiscal analyses and budget impacts will be considered before bills can reach the full Assembly. Several authors and stakeholders in the hearing said they expect continued negotiations on technical amendments, implementation guidance and reporting requirements as the bills proceed.

Ending

Committee members who spoke in favor highlighted public safety, consumer protection and statewide coordination as drivers for advancing the measures; speakers from advocacy groups and industry urged refinements to guardrails and implementation details. The record shows both bipartisan support and points of contention that are likely to shape amendments in Appropriations or on the Assembly floor.